[U-W] Glogski Players 48 posts 3,368 battles Report post #51 Posted November 2, 2016 She was the original fast battleship lol. I know, that's why I said it! 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
_GrimLock__ Players 371 posts 8,020 battles Report post #52 Posted November 2, 2016 "do you want a free ferrari-nah il just drive my lada" Of course everybody wants it ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BONUS] Hedgehog1963 [BONUS] Beta Tester 3,211 posts 14,935 battles Report post #53 Posted November 2, 2016 Given the fate of HMS hood I'm rather surprised people want her. Her deck armour wasn't up to the task. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[U-W] Glogski Players 48 posts 3,368 battles Report post #54 Posted November 2, 2016 Given the fate of HMS hood I'm rather surprised people want her. Her deck armour wasn't up to the task. *triggered* sorry *detonated* Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SLOTH] txtspeak Players 3,041 posts 5,653 battles Report post #55 Posted November 2, 2016 Given the fate of HMS hood I'm rather surprised people want her. Her deck armour wasn't up to the task. what was wrong with hood is more or less the same thing that happened to her predecessors at jutland. you can't just place ammunition like that... the deck armour was more than adequate, in fact it was better than Bismarck's. but the ammunition layout and loading system caused the detonation 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[U-W] Glogski Players 48 posts 3,368 battles Report post #56 Posted November 2, 2016 what was wrong with hood is more or less the same thing that happened to her predecessors at jutland. you can't just place ammunition like that... the deck armour was more than adequate, in fact it was better than Bismarck's. but the ammunition layout and loading system caused the detonation Agreed. They left the ammunition hatches open for more efficiency I believe which led to the detonation. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[BONUS] Hedgehog1963 [BONUS] Beta Tester 3,211 posts 14,935 battles Report post #57 Posted November 2, 2016 what was wrong with hood is more or less the same thing that happened to her predecessors at jutland. you can't just place ammunition like that... the deck armour was more than adequate, in fact it was better than Bismarck's. but the ammunition layout and loading system caused the detonation Yeah. Apparently HMS Barham the same. They were not swift in learning from their mistakes. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[B0TS] philjd Beta Tester 1,806 posts 7,738 battles Report post #58 Posted November 2, 2016 what was wrong with hood is more or less the same thing that happened to her predecessors at jutland. you can't just place ammunition like that... the deck armour was more than adequate, in fact it was better than Bismarck's. but the ammunition layout and loading system caused the detonation Agreed. They left the ammunition hatches open for more efficiency I believe which led to the detonation. Yeah. Apparently HMS Barham the same. They were not swift in learning from their mistakes. Come on guys - the lesson learned post Jutland remove your theories. No none knows conclusively what happened to Hood - with the most likely explanation being that it was the secondary magazines (next door to the main battery ones) that were penetrated and subsequently exploded, probably triggering the main magazine also. Barham - was a torpedo.. and the magazine did not explode until she capsized, probably through dislodged shells etc. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[U-W] Glogski Players 48 posts 3,368 battles Report post #59 Posted November 2, 2016 Come on guys - the lesson learned post Jutland remove your theories. No none knows conclusively what happened to Hood - with the most likely explanation being that it was the secondary magazines (next door to the main battery ones) that were penetrated and subsequently exploded, probably triggering the main magazine also. Barham - was a torpedo.. and the magazine did not explode until she capsized, probably through dislodged shells etc. It was previously known that they left Hoods ammunition hatches open which easily led to it being ignited Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SLOTH] txtspeak Players 3,041 posts 5,653 battles Report post #60 Posted November 2, 2016 Come on guys - the lesson learned post Jutland remove your theories. No none knows conclusively what happened to Hood - with the most likely explanation being that it was the secondary magazines (next door to the main battery ones) that were penetrated and subsequently exploded, probably triggering the main magazine also. Barham - was a torpedo.. and the magazine did not explode until she capsized, probably through dislodged shells etc. what do you mean most likely. it's CERTAIN. Ted briggs himself (the last survivor of hood, may he rest in peace) told of an officer running down and telling him that a shell had set fire to the 102mm secondary battery ammunition stores. and the way the explosion lasted for the whole 2-3 minutes as the ship sank clearly is that the fire caught to the 380 magazine 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[B0TS] philjd Beta Tester 1,806 posts 7,738 battles Report post #61 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) It was previously known that they left Hoods ammunition hatches open which easily led to it being ignited What source is this from, 'hearsay' and 'conventional wisdom' are not enough. I've done a lot of reading on the RN and navies in general covering 1900 through to the end of ww2 and I have never seen this claim before (other than for the RN BC's from after Dogger bank through to Jutland). what do you mean most likely. it's CERTAIN. Ted briggs himself (the last survivor of hood, may he rest in peace) told of an officer running down and telling him that a shell had set fire to the 102mm secondary battery ammunition stores. and the way the explosion lasted for the whole 2-3 minutes as the ship sank clearly is that the fire caught to the 380 magazine Ted Briggs, good guy from the little time I spent with him, I met him at the HMS Hood association annual dinner/gathering just after the David Mearns expedition. I would recommend that anyone interested in the WW2 ships go along to one of their association gatherings (RN has them, USN has them, I see no reason why other navy crews wouldn't - have a try). Certainty - is supported by evidence/proof. If certainty had existed before the Mearns expedition then all the other theories would not have existed. Edited November 3, 2016 by philjd 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[A-O-W] Dippypiece Beta Tester 82 posts 6,054 battles Report post #62 Posted November 3, 2016 Hood was a fast ship Yes i was talking about battleships some one asked what the British battleship play style would be like earlier in the thread, that was my opinion. The Hood being a battle cruiser wasn't included in my assumptions. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Venom_Too ∞ Players 5,189 posts 7,044 battles Report post #63 Posted November 3, 2016 I would also give her on Tier 6. Why ? you have the King George Class and the Nelson Class. Which were both better than the Hood. Cause they were full fleshed Battleships. And as Battlecruiser she would be a good Contestant as Tier 6... Which allows her to play against Bismarck and get sunk (Instant Deto without a Doubt ) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[A-O-W] Dippypiece Beta Tester 82 posts 6,054 battles Report post #64 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) I would also give her on Tier 6. Why ? you have the King George Class and the Nelson Class. Which were both better than the Hood. Cause they were full fleshed Battleships. And as Battlecruiser she would be a good Contestant as Tier 6... Which allows her to play against Bismarck and get sunk (Instant Deto without a Doubt ) Tier seven suites her better in the tech tree as t6 she would be somewhat overpowered as others have listed in this thread. As for KVG and nelson classes they will both be normal tech tree ships, The Hood has no place in the British battleship tech tree it shouldn't be in there at the exclusion to one of the other ships listed. Hood will either be a premium ship or a ship in the British battle cruiser line if that is made, and nothing else. My money is on premium, the temptation will be too big for WG to ignore imo. Edited November 3, 2016 by Dippypiece Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,871 battles Report post #65 Posted November 3, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion-class_battleship Potential Tier 8 Battleship design if British Battleships where a thing Tier 8? more like Tier 9. The Lions design was entirely comparable with the Iowas - two knots slower but much more armour. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[B0TS] philjd Beta Tester 1,806 posts 7,738 battles Report post #66 Posted November 3, 2016 Tier 8? more like Tier 9. The Lions design was entirely comparable with the Iowas - two knots slower but much more armour. and also comparable guns, but without the superheavy 2700lb shells.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[KONI] Getzamatic Players 442 posts 5,871 battles Report post #67 Posted November 3, 2016 (edited) and also comparable guns, but without the superheavy 2700lb shells.... Although the proposed 2375lb shells were hardly lightweight - and they would have had significantly bigger burster charges. The RN experimented with super heavy shells themselves but decided they were too optimised for deck penetration and gave up to much in vertical penetration - swings and roundabouts. The RN never shared the USNs faith in extreme range gunnery so they wanted a projectile that worked well at all ranges. Edited November 3, 2016 by Getzamatic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[SCRUB] T0byJug Quality Poster 5,358 posts 25,506 battles Report post #68 Posted November 3, 2016 It was previously known that they left Hoods ammunition hatches open which easily led to it being ignited Completely wrong!!! You are mixed up with Battle of Jutland WW1 and the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron. As a result of Jutland Shell and Cordite handling forbid not using anti flash measures.So no this was not the case with HMS Hood, If you have a source please provide it? 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
[U-W] Glogski Players 48 posts 3,368 battles Report post #69 Posted November 3, 2016 Completely wrong!!! You are mixed up with Battle of Jutland WW1 and the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron. As a result of Jutland Shell and Cordite handling forbid not using anti flash measures.So no this was not the case with HMS Hood, If you have a source please provide it? What source is this from, 'hearsay' and 'conventional wisdom' are not enough. I've done a lot of reading on the RN and navies in general covering 1900 through to the end of ww2 and I have never seen this claim before (other than for the RN BC's from after Dogger bank through to Jutland). Ted Briggs, good guy from the little time I spent with him, I met him at the HMS Hood association annual dinner/gathering just after the David Mearns expedition. I would recommend that anyone interested in the WW2 ships go along to one of their association gatherings (RN has them, USN has them, I see no reason why other navy crews wouldn't - have a try). Certainty - is supported by evidence/proof. If certainty had existed before the Mearns expedition then all the other theories would not have existed. Ahhhhh, thank you! Sorry for that misleading information, I was mistaken! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
